EPC Exhibit 132-20
September 17, 2009
THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Dewey Section
To:
Caroline Kent, Chair
Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee
Cc:
Members of the Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee
Karl E. Debus-López, Chief, U.S. General Division
From:
Rebecca Green, Assistant Editor
Dewey Decimal Classification
OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
Via:
Joan S. Mitchell, Editor in Chief
Dewey Decimal Classification
OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
Re:
401 and 410: Selected topics
This exhibit proposes two sets of actions to address issues in the 400s that were left over from
EPC 131-21.1 Semiotics: 401.4 and T1—014.
Manual entry for 401 vs. 121.68, 149.94, 410.1
The first action addresses the Manual entry for 401 vs. 121.68, 149.94, 410.1. This Manual entry
gives instructions for the use of 401.43, but the class is not mentioned in the record’s entry
identifier or its caption; nor is it mentioned in the preference order statement.
As we considered various modifications to the Manual entry, two larger questions arose. First,
we wondered why this set of numbers would be considered in a single Manual entry, eventually
reasoning it was because they all touch on the philosophy and/or theory of language/linguistics
(which is not particularly obvious from the overall caption of the Manual note).
Second, is there any real need for this Manual entry? Does the explanation given in the Manual
entry as it stands give guidance not found in the schedule? Does some other guidance need to be
given? Three strands of guidance would appear to be useful. The first strand of guidance
addresses the difference between 121.68 and 149.94. The potential confusion between the
philosophy numbers is caused by the note “Class here philosophy of language” at 121.68 and the
notes “Including ordinary language philosophy” and “Class here general semantics as a school of
linguistic philosophy (e.g., the school of Alfred Korzybski)” at 149.94. But the confusion
disappears upon realizing that ordinary language philosophy and general semantics are the names
1
of specific theories. The difference between the two classes is captured well by their hierarchical
contexts. (The caption at 140 is Specific philosophical schools and viewpoints.)
The second strand of useful guidance concerns the difference between 401 and 410.1. We find it
unlikely that the present explanation would help very many people in the context of the
philosophy and/or theory of language/linguistics: it emphasizes the use of 401 as an
interdisciplinary number for language and literature and does little to distinguish between 401
and 410.1 (or 40x and 41x). But the difference between 40x Language and 41x Linguistics is
anything but clear, given the standard definition of linguistics as the study of language and given
also the various structural hierarchy relationships from 41x numbers to 40x numbers. A Manual
note for 400 vs. 410 might indeed be called for if there were a clear message to convey. My
personal sense is that the relationships among 306.44, 40x, and 41x need to be clarified; a
Manual note covering them might then be considered after such a review is undertaken.
The third strand of useful guidance relates to the classification of philosophy of language in the
100s vs. its classification in the 400s, most especially regarding the distinction between 121.68
and 401. We need to provide as clear a contrast as possible between philosophy of language in
the class-here note at 121.68 and the standard subdivision philosophy and theory of language at
401. Currently there are see-also references from 121.68 to 401.41 (to become 401.4) and
401.43 for linguistic treatment of semiotics and semantics, respectively, but there is no reference
from 121.68 to 401. Similarly, there are see-also references from 401.41 (i.e., 401.4) and 401.43
to 121.68, but no reference from 401 to 121.68. Ironically, it is where the greatest need for
clarification between the 100s and the 400s lies that we currently have no link at all.
Language use provides evidence for the distinction that is needed. On the one hand, the phrase
"philosophy of language" is used almost exclusively in philosophy. On the other hand, the
phrase “theory of language” (e.g., what are the basic characteristics of human language?; what
does the process of language acquisition say about the human language facility?) is much more
likely to be associated with linguists (including psycholinguists, sociolinguists, and especially
neurolinguists) than with philosophers. More specifically, in linguistics one typically speaks of
linguistic theory; theoretical linguistics includes phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics,
pragmatics, etc., while excluding psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics. (It is as if most of the
410s were displaced from 410.1; however, the Manual note at T1—01 instructs us not to use this
standard subdivision “where theory constitutes the bulk of the subject matter of a field.”)
On the one hand, the problem appears to be an artifact of the combining of philosophy and
theory in T1—01. What we would like to do is associate the philosophy of language with 121.68
and the theory of language with 401. However, the Manual note at T1—01 Philosophy and
theory indicates: “The term philosophy and theory is treated as a single concept, covering the
general or abstract principles applied to a field of activity or thought.” Unfortunately, we can’t
solve our problem by relocating the philosophy of language out of 401 to 121.68, while leaving
the theory of language there. We will need to solve the problem (1) by adding notes back and
forth between 121.68 and 401 and (2) by clearing up the indexing.
On the other hand, even though linguists do not often use the phrase “philosophy of language”
per se, some of them do address concerns designated elsewhere as “philosophy of language,”
2
e.g., the relationship between language, thought/mind, and the world; the origin of language; the
acquisition of language; the nature of meaning; metaphor. When it gets to specific topics within
philosophy of language, the simplest and best way to determine whether the work should be
classed in 121.68 or in 401 is to identify the disciplinary focus of the audience addressed by a
specific work; typically this is the disciplinary focus of the author(s) in his/her/their work
generally.
That both philosophers and linguists address topics within the philosophy of language means
there is a need to indicate where interdisciplinary works on philosophy of language are to be
classed and to tie the two classes together by a see reference and a class-elsewhere note. Just as
the phrase “philosophy of language” is much more likely to be used in the context of philosophy
than of linguistics, philosophical contributions are more likely to predominate in interdisciplinary
works on philosophy of language than are linguistic contributions. The better of the two
numbers for interdisciplinary works on philosophy of language is 121.68. (Note: This violates
the rule of application.) Additionally, the class-elsewhere note needed at 410.1 for referring to
linguistics treatment of philosophy of language in 401 makes the current do-not-use note there
both unnecessary and undesirable.
The indexing needs to do a better job of facilitating the choice between 121.68 and 401.
Currently, the broad aspects of philosophy of language are represented in 121.68 by the Relative
Index term Language—philosophy—philosophical works. More specific aspects are represented
by such Relative Index terms as Meaning—epistemology and Semantics—philosophy. No
Relative Index terms have been assigned to 401. However, more specific Relative Index terms
(e.g., Reference, Reference—linguistics, Semantics) are indexed to more specific numbers.
Our proposed changes to the indexing are listed below each record. We propose to add
Philosophy of language as the interdisciplinary heading at 121.68, at the same time adding
Philosophy of language—linguistics to the indexing at 401. Further at 121.68, we propose to
make the subheadings for Reference and Semantics more specific by using –philosophy of
language instead of –philosophy; this proposal is in keeping with the use of –philosophy of
religion in the 210s. (We propose to leave the indexing of Semiotics—philosophy alone; since
semiotics deals with all kinds of signs, using the subheading —philosophy of language seems too
restrictive.) Because of the potential confusion between Philosophy of language—linguistics
and Language—philosophy, which also describes 401, the latter term is appropriately added as
an index term by Editorial Index Rule 5.1.3. And since there is moderate literary warrant for the
phrase, it is proposed that Linguistic theory be assigned as an electronic-only Relative Index
term at 410.1.
Based on the foregoing, we recommend deletion of the current Manual note: The first strand of
desirable guidance is already given in the schedules; the second strand needs to await further
review; the third strand is better addressed by notes and indexing.
Finally, we take one short detour: While considering the indexing questions above, we
recognized a further issue involving 121.68 Meaning, interpretation, hermeneutics and 121.686
Philosophical hermeneutics. Although hermeneutics and interpretation / interpretation theory are
inseparable, they are, in fact, currently separated: interpretation is in 121.68, hermeneutics in
3
121.686. On the one hand, the Relative Index heading Hermeneutics is assigned to 121.686. On
the other hand, “philosophical hermeneutics” traditionally has referred only to Hans-Georg
Gadamer's work/perspective. Fortunately the usage of the term in philosophical circles is
currently broadening and by so doing is catching up with classifier understanding: Most recent
hermeneutics works (Gadamer or otherwise) have gone in 121.686; only a few have been classed
in 121.68 (but including Gadamer's Philosophical hermeneutics!). Therefore, we are proposing
to (1) change the index heading from Interpretation to Interpretation—philosophy (which leaves
interpretation without an interdisciplinary number; this may be the most appropriate strategy:
being such a broad/vague topic, the practice of interpretation in various fields almost feels like
different topics); (2) move interpretation to 121.686 by adding a class-here note for interpretation
there; (3) move the Relative Index term Interpretation—philosophy to 121.686; and (4) add a
standard-subdivisions-are-added note at 121.68. (We note that the odd collection of subheadings
used with Interpretation [—archaeological technique, —linguistics, —musical technique, and
now —philosophy], as well as headings and subheadings starting with Interpretation
[Interpretation of tongues, --interpretation of nuclear structure] warrant further consideration in
the future.)
121.68
Meaning, interpretation, hermeneutics
Standard subdivisions are added for meaning, interpretation, hermeneutics
together, for meaning alone
Including reference, semantics, semiotics
Class here interdisciplinary works on philosophy of language
Class interdisciplinary works on semiotics in 302.2
For philosophy of language in linguistics, see 401
See also 149.94 for general semantics as a school of linguistic philosophy;
also 401.41 for semiotics in linguistics; also 401.43 for semantics in
linguistics
See Manual at 401 vs. 121.68, 149.94, 410.1
Index term:
Interpretation
Language—philosophy—philosophical works
Meaning--epistemology
Philosophy of language
Reference—philosophy of language
Semantics—philosophy of language
Semiotics—philosophy
4
121.686
Philosophical hermeneutics
Class here interpretation
Index term:
401
Hermeneutics
Hermeneutics—philosophy
Interpretation—philosophy
Philosophy and theory
Class interdisciplinary works on philosophy of language in 121.68
See Manual at 401 vs. 121.68, 149.94, 410.1
Index term:
410.1
Language—philosophy
Philosophy of language—linguistics
Philosophy and theory
Do not use for philosophy and theory of language and languages; class in 401
Class philosophy of language in linguistics in 401; class schools, theories,
methodologies of linguistics in 410.18
See Manual at 401 vs. 121.68, 149.94, 410.1
Index term:
Linguistic theory (electronic only)
Metalanguage
Metalinguistics
Typology (Linguistics)
5
The entire Manual entry shown below would be deleted:
401 vs. 121.68, 149.94, 410.1
Philosophy and theory of language vs. Meaning, interpretation, hermeneutics in
philosophy vs. Linguistic philosophies vs. Philosophy and theory of linguistics
Use 401 for works by philologists studying language, literature, and various
other cultural is sues, but with an emphasis on language, and for works where phi lologists with broader concerns than linguists reflect on their discipline and its
methods. Use 401 also for broad works on the philosophy and theory of language
and languages written by linguists and philologists.
Use 401.41 Semiotics or 401.43 Semantics for works in which linguists study semantics
and semiotics to answer traditional questions about natural languages, often in relation to
other topics in linguistic theory, such as grammar, lexicology, phonology. Use 410.1 for
works in which linguists reflect on their discipline and its methods. (See also discussion at
401.43 vs. 306.44, 401.9, 412, 415.)
Philosophy of language
Use 149.94 for "linguistic philosophies"—view points or schools of philosophy that put
study of language at the center and use linguistic methods to study multiple questions in
philosophy, such as metaphysics, aesthetics, logic, or ethics. Use 121.68 for philosophical
writing on language investigating traditional concerns of epistemology (theory of
knowledge), for example, truth and how truth can be determined.
If in doubt, prefer in the following order: 401, 410.1, 149.94, 121.68.
Structural hierarchy link from 410 to 401.43
The second action proposed by this exhibit is to insert a link in the structural hierarchy required
to offset actions taken in EPC 131.21.1. As is clear from the Manual entry above, although
401.43 is a language number notationally, it operates as a linguistics number structurally. In the
past the structural hierarchy has operated through a see reference from 410 Linguistics to
semiotics in 401.41 Discourse analysis and then a see reference from 401.41 to 401.43
Semantics. The changes made in EPC 131.21.1 broke the connection from 410 Linguistics to
401.43 Semantics, which needs to be restored (but now through a single, direct link). At the
same time, the structural hierarchy relationship from 410 to the relocated semiotics in 401.4
Communication (or, more precisely, to semiotics, wherever it is classed) should be deleted, since
semiotics is broader than linguistics, not the other way around. Actually, it would make more
sense to have a see reference from semiotics to 410 Linguistics, but having a see reference from
410 to 401.4 for the linguistics > lexicology relationship and from 401.4 to 410 for the semiotics
> linguistics relationship would be too confusing. (It is precisely that kind of confusion that
motivates the suggestion of a major revision effort here.)
6
The modification is shown in the context of changes to 410 as given in the earlier exhibit.
410
Linguistics
Class here descriptive, synchronic linguistics; comprehensive works on Eurasiatic
languages, on Indo-European languages, on Indo-Germanic languages, on
Indo-Hittite languages
Class linguistics of specific languages in 419–490
For sociolinguistics, see 306.44; for lexicology, see 401.4; for semiotics, see
401.4 401.41; for semantics, see 401.43; for specific Indo-European languages,
see 420–491
See Manual at 410
(Option A: To give local emphasis and a shorter number to a specific language,
e.g., Russian, class it here and add to base number 41 as instructed under
420–490; in that case class linguistics in 400, its subdivisions in 401–409,
standard subdivisions of language and of linguistics in 400.1–400.9. Option B is
described under 420–490)
7